Chesapeake Connector Economic Benefits Study Submitted to the Wilmington Area Planning Council MAY 2014 If the Appendices are not included in this printed report, they can be found at http://www.wilmapco.org/chesapeakeconnector/ Chesapeake Connector Economic Benefits Table of Contents Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………….………........4 Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………….………………….5 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………...8 Chapter 1: Existing Document Summary………………….………………………...…………………………..10 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10 Key Findings………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…10 Engineering Review……………………………………………………………………………………………….….10 Travel Demand Review……………………………………………………………………………………………….13 Freight Review…………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..16 Combined Economic Assessment………………………………..…………………………………………….……17 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives…………………….………………………………………………..……18 No-Build…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……18 Option A…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……20 Option B…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……22 Common Elements of the Options……………………………………………………………………………….…..23 Option C…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……23 Relation of No-Build and Options A and B to Proposed High-Speed Rail Improvements………………………24 Chapter 3: Project Alternatives and Cost…………………………………………………………..…………….27 Chapter 4: Freight and Passenger Rail Context………………………………………………………………….30 Potential Passenger Rail Benefits……………………………………………………………………….…………...30 Potential Freight Rail Benefits………………………………………………………………………………….……..31 Truck Freight in the Chesapeake Connector Study Area……………………………………………………….…..35 Rail Freight in the Chesapeake Connector Study Area……………………………………………………...……..36 Freight Forecasts in the Study Area…………………………………………………………………………..………39 1 | Page Chesapeake Connector Economic Benefits Specific Freight Opportunities in the Study Area……………………………………………………………….……42 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………………………...…….43 Chapter 5: Benefit Cost Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………..44 Costs……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….44 Construction Costs…………………………………………………………………………………………….………44 Operations and Maintenance Costs…………………………………………………………………………….……45 Benefits…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….45 Train Operating Savings…………………………………………………………………………………………..…..45 Safety Savings…………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..46 Emissions Savings……………………………………………………………………………………………….……48 Pavement Savings……………………………………………………………………………………………….……48 Inventory Savings……………………………………………………………………………………………….…….48 Congestion Savings…………………………………………………………………………………………….……..50 Residual Value……………………………………………………………………………………………….………..50 BCA Results………………………………………………………………………………………….……….……….50 Chapter 6: Findings and Conclusions………………………………………………………………...………….52 Appendix A: Summary of Documents to Distribute to the Steering and Technical Committees………………..54 Core Documents…………………………………………………………………………………………………...….55 Engineering Review……………………………………………………………………………………………….…..55 Travel Demand Review………………………………………………………………………………………….……55 Freight Review…………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..55 Planning and Policy Review……………………………………………………………………………………….….55 Combined Economic Assessment……………………………………………………………………………….…..55 Supporting Documents…………………………………………………………………………………………….….56 Engineering Review………………………………………………………………………………………………..….56 Travel Demand Review…………………………………………………………………………………………….…58 2 | Page Chesapeake Connector Economic Benefits Freight Review………………………………………………………………………………………………….……..60 Planning and Policy Review…………………………………………………………………………………….…….60 Combined Economic Assessment…………………………………………………………………………….……..60 Peripheral Documents………………………………………………………………………………………………...61 Engineering Review……………………………………………………………………………………………….…..61 Travel Demand Review………………………………………………………………………………………….……62 Freight Review…………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..63 Planning and Policy Review……………………………………………………………………………………….….65 Combined Economic Assessment……………………………………………………………………………….…..66 Appendix B: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Standard Cost Category (SCC) Descriptions……………….70 Appendix C: Interviews…………………………………………………………………………………………….….79 Amtrak……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..79 Meeting Part 1 (discussion of pre-developed questions).………………………………………………………..….79 Meeting Part 2 (general conversation).……………………………………………………………………………....82 Norfolk Southern – Operations………………………………………………………………………………….….…84 Meeting Part 1 (discussion of project background and questions):…………………………………………….…..84 Meeting Part 2 (general conversation):………………………………………………………………………….…...86 Norfolk Southern – National……………………………………………………………………………………….….89 Port of Baltimore……………………………………………………………………………………………………….90 Sussex County Economic Development…………………………………………………………………….….……95 Delaware Department of Transportation…………………………………………………………………………..…97 Meeting Part 1 (discussion of pre-developed questions)………………………………………………………..……97 Meeting Part 2 (general conversation)…………………………………………………………………………….…..98 MTA/MARC…………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..….100 Meeting Part 1 (discussion of project background)………………………………………………………….…..…100 Meeting Part 2 (general conversation)…102 3 | Page Chesapeake Connector Economic Benefits Acknowledgements The project team would like to express their gratitude to the following interview participants for their time and valuable analysis: Jeff Gerlach and Stan Slater from Amtrak Laura Hoag and Rick Crawford from Norfolk Southern Stakeholders interviewed at the Rail Summit: Eric Callaway from MD&DE Railroad Dominic Scurti from the Port of Baltimore Julie Wheatley from Sussex County Economic Development David Campbell and Albert Loyola from Delaware Transit Corporation Ira Silverman from Maryland Transit Administration/MARC. 4 | Page Chesapeake Connector Economic Benefits Executive Summary This report is a benefits and feasibility study of the Chesapeake Connector project, a proposal to relieve a bottleneck on the Amtrak Northeast Corridor (NEC) between the Bacon and Prince Interlockings, a 6.3 mile two-track section of the NEC between Perryville, Maryland and North East, Maryland. This section of track is one of the few remaining two-track segments along this heavily traveled rail corridor that is generally three or more tracks. The addition of a third track in this location would both alleviate the bottleneck and improve a safety concern for both freight and passenger rail services. Construction of the Chesapeake Connector has the potential to benefit multiple public and private partners. This project has been a recognized regional need for more than a decade, but has taken on increased importance as freight, intercity and commuter traffic has continued to increase, putting additional pressure on this 100-year-old network. The purpose of this report is to revisit previous studies and findings while also considering recent developments in the region to determine the most feasible engineering and operational recommendations for this project. Recent developments include: changes at the nearby ports (Baltimore and Wilmington); BRAC- related job relocations to the Aberdeen Proving Ground that are expanding the number of households within the region and the potential demand for commuter rail service; future potential for high speed rail in the corridor; shifting freight demand in the region, and; the proposed reconstruction of the Susquehanna River NEC Bridge. The analysis developed in this report assesses the benefits of the Chesapeake Connector project as an independent project. However, these recommendations may also be carried forward as part of the Susquehanna River Bridge Project. After the data collection and analysis were concluded for this study, the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) announced plans to construct a new maintenance and layover facility for its Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) trains at a location just north of Perryville, MD, between the Perry interlocking and the two-track segment of the NEC. This facility location could affect major changes on MARC’s Penn Line, which operates on the NEC. Also, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) has begun shipping crude oil from the western United States to the PBF Refinery in Delaware City, DE via the NEC. This has added 4-5 trains per day to the traffic along the Chesapeake Connector project section. It is suspected that these two factors may have an impact on the Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) that is included in this report. The Chesapeake Connector Project suggests two design alternatives which are being considered for cost estimation, as well as the No-Build scenario, and an infeasible option that was ruled out, for the 6.3-mile corridor. Option A would add a single third main track along the corridor and cross the NEC tracks 2 and 3 by a grade-separated structure over the NEC. This option will require a high level of engineering work because 5 | Page Chesapeake Connector Economic Benefits of the design of the bridge structures involved. Structural improvements of three existing bridges and the construction of at least six new overpass/underpass structures are anticipated to accommodate the additional track. Option B would add a third track to the NEC at grade, between Bacon and Prince interlockings. This alignment differs from Option A in that it does not allow for a single continuous move between track 1 at Bacon and track 4 at Prince